Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6136 (RAJ)

MOINUDDIN CHISTI S/O MUSHTKEEM CHISTI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMP/1798/2022 · 2026-04-17

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:16172] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1798/2022 1. Moinuddin Chisti S/o Mushtkeem Chisti, R/o Itawa Road, Sultanpur Kota Rural Raj. 2. Jarina W/o Moinuddin Chisti, R/o Itawa Road, Sultanpur Kota Rural Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Meena Suman D/o Ramdev Suman, R/o Sanjay Nagar Sultan Pur Kota Rural Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Verma for Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/04/2026 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.212/2021 registered with Police Station Sultanpur District Kota Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(f), 5(l) & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner on the record that he has committed any offence. He submits that the petitioners have been falsely booked in the instant case on the basis of concocted story, hence, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. [2026:RJ-JP:16172] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1798/2022] 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that after thorough investigation in the matter, a prima facie case is found to be proved against the petitioners for the above stated offences and after investigation, the charge-sheet has already been submitted against them on 25.07.2022 before the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act No.04, Kota, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant criminal misc. petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence against the petitioners. The correctness of the allegations cannot be examined by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer, who has already investigated the matter from all the four corners and submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners before the concerned court on 25.07.2022. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to take all available defence at the appropriate stage of the trial. 7. The factual report so furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor is ordered to be taken on record. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/10